Sex is sometimes a necessary device to advance the plot (Joffrey and the two prostitutes), but I don't need five consecutive minutes of nearly hardcore porn (seriously, wiping semen from her lip then sending her to blow another guy?) that do absolutely nothing for the plot.

Yeah, yeah, I know HBO's slogan is 'Tits! Swear Words! Vaginas in the distance!' but get over it.

Tatsuma:I don't need five consecutive minutes of nearly hardcore porn (seriously, wiping semen from her lip then sending her to blow another guy?) that do absolutely nothing for the plot.

That scene does a good job of depicting just how disconnected from and unconcerned he is about the women who work for him. It was, at least it seemed to me, a turning point at which you really see this about him and realize just what slimey mofo he is.

All of the Littlefinger brothel sex scenes have been useless thus far. No reason for them. Would have been better served cutting them out and using that 30 minutes worth of air time on other things. Frankly almost all of the scenes with whores in them have been useless except if they also have Tyrion as well.

However that doesn't mean the other sex scenes were without point.Yes the 'tastefulness' of the sex scenes are going downhill. That's the point. It shows Joffery is more than just a sad little boy trying to play up his sadistic nature in public. He really is that twisted and becoming worse much quickly.

The other points are just perplexing. Yes, in that world male heirs are needed. No one claimed Westros to be a utopia.

It's not a double standard. Women like women more as well. That's why men's advertising and women's advertising are both heavy on the skinny, good looking chicks with nice body lines and not much clothing.

It's not a double standard. Women like women more as well. That's why men's advertising and women's advertising are both heavy on the skinny, good looking chicks with nice body lines and not much clothing.

There is a very long history of the double standard of male/female nudity in television and movies. Women are considered fair game for use as sexual objects; men, not so much. Showing male eye candy = shirtless hunk. Showing female eye candy = nude, oiled woman making fake moans at the camera. Game of Thrones is just a long line in this continued issue.

They skipped the part where Theon was told by the ship's captain's daughter that he'd knocked her up, and his reaction. That actually told you a lot more about his character than his telling her not to smile. Maybe could have left that in if the brothel scenes were cut down a little.

It's not a double standard. Women like women more as well. That's why men's advertising and women's advertising are both heavy on the skinny, good looking chicks with nice body lines and not much clothing.

Whoops, forgot to mention my main point. The reason men's advertising and women's advertising both use skinny good looking chicks is for two entirely different reasons. For men, the ad sells "Look at this sexy woman you should/could be with." For women, the ad sells "Look at this sexy woman you should/could be." It's not because women don't want to see men.

Well that's the problem in your reasoning. You think the MPAA is worth a drip from a syphilitic elephant's sexual organs. Lemme show you what the MPAA is made of:

A totally worthless pile of shiat of an organization with no appeals process to speak of. They should all be sprayed in face with pepper spray by Officer Fatfark (who probably lost his officer title long ago) like those protestors and given a lifetime restraining order from every movie theater on Earth.

That said, you have some resentment or something. Men get objectified all the time if you watch. The difference is women aren't as visual so can't just go with eye candy like you can with women and expect the same results. The current status quo is not some vast conspiracy to keep you from seeing cawk, but rather the result of oodles of marketing research. If you wanna see more hunky guys, support hunky guy films. I certainly won't so it's up to you!

Well that's the problem in your reasoning. You think the MPAA is worth a drip from a syphilitic elephant's sexual organs. Lemme show you what the MPAA is made of:

[cdn.hivehealthmedia.com image 580x357]

A totally worthless pile of shiat of an organization with no appeals process to speak of. They should all be sprayed in face with pepper spray by Officer Fatfark (who probably lost his officer title long ago) like those protestors and given a lifetime restraining order from every movie theater on Earth.

That said, you have some resentment or something. Men get objectified all the time if you watch. The difference is women aren't as visual so can't just go with eye candy like you can with women and expect the same results. The current status quo is not some vast conspiracy to keep you from seeing cawk, but rather the result of oodles of marketing research. If you wanna see more hunky guys, support hunky guy films. I certainly won't so it's up to you!

Dude, really?1.) Obviously the MPAA is ridiculous, which is why I pointed out their stupid policies2.) You're really going to presume I'm gay because I'm pointing out that there is a double standard when it comes to male or female nudity? And double standard does not = vast conspiracy. The reason that the market research produces those results is because of the double standard. Also, the "Women aren't as visual" thing has been pretty clearly debunked for years. Go ask the TFettes if they don't enjoy looking at attractive men.

America is beyond farked up when it comes to an obsession with nudity. This show is overcompensating because nudity is such a rarity on American tv. America has lots of growing up to do to shed it's Puritan chains.

doglover:Rincewind53: Also, the "Women aren't as visual" thing has been pretty clearly debunked for years.

No it has not. Leastwise, not this far west.

Science is different when you travel around the globe, Rincewind. Many things are different, in fact, which is why our friend here is still stuck in the 1950s. I think it's because he's on the other side of the time cube.

Theaetetus:doglover: Rincewind53: Also, the "Women aren't as visual" thing has been pretty clearly debunked for years.

No it has not. Leastwise, not this far west.

Science is different when you travel around the globe, Rincewind. Many things are different, in fact, which is why our friend here is still stuck in the 1950s. I think it's because he's on the other side of the time cube.

Actually the time cube has 4 complete simultaneous 24 hour days in a single day and if you don't believe it you're stupid and evil, but it's not applicable here.

You can cite studies and I'll listen, but there's entire industries built off of cute girls in skimpy outfits and they are orders of magnitude larger than anything built off beefcakes. So cite all you want, a simple stroll through the real red light district or magazine section proves your studies are incomplete.

doglover:Men get objectified all the time if you watch. The difference is women aren't as visual so can't just go with eye candy like you can with women and expect the same results. The current status quo is not some vast conspiracy to keep you from seeing cawk, but rather the result of oodles of marketing research. If you wanna see more hunky guys, support hunky guy films. I certainly won't so it's up to you!

There is absolutely a double standard, and it's because the 18-34 male demographic drives pretty much all marketing and merchandising, and that demographic might go into a panic if confronted with sudden wang on their tv screens.

As far as GoT, I just wish they'd concentrate on the main characters - with such a large and important cast there was no need to invent the prostitute Roz, much less stick her in every episode. The guys have had Cersei, Dany, Melisandre, and countless naked extras. We've had Hodor..

But that's not your point. Your point was that women are less visual than men, and therefore do not have a desire to see attractive men in minimal amounts of clothing on movie screens. At the same time as you made that point, you said that women liked observing women because they enjoy looking at the female form more than the male form. Both of those points have been debunked pretty clearly, and I don't know of any study that says that biological differences in arousal response are either (a)innate, (b) have anything to do with desire, or (c) reflect movie-going preference.

doglover:Theaetetus: doglover: Rincewind53: Also, the "Women aren't as visual" thing has been pretty clearly debunked for years.

No it has not. Leastwise, not this far west.

Science is different when you travel around the globe, Rincewind. Many things are different, in fact, which is why our friend here is still stuck in the 1950s. I think it's because he's on the other side of the time cube.

Actually the time cube has 4 complete simultaneous 24 hour days in a single day and if you don't believe it you're stupid and evil, but it's not applicable here.

You can cite studies and I'll listen, but there's entire industries built off of cute girls in skimpy outfits and they are orders of magnitude larger than anything built off beefcakes. So cite all you want, a simple stroll through the real red light district or magazine section proves your studies are incomplete.

No, it just shows that patriarchy is deeply entrenched in society. Rincewind even pointed out the different means by which pictures of women are used, which also provides an explanation for that "order of magnitude" difference.Due to the myriad societal factors involved, the existence or lack thereof of magazines really doesn't say anything about biological differences, and such alleged differences have been disproven in various psychological and neurological studies.

I've seen both Bruno and The Piano, pretty sure they were both rated R. And I'm 100% sure the latter features Harvey Keitel's dick.

I'm sure there are plenty of other examples but I'm not somewhere I feel comfortable googling for that.

I guess there just isn't a lot of demand for more flaccid dicks in film.

Yeah, I'll admit that the rule has loosened up a bit in the last few years. But it's still a scandalous thing when they do it. When Forgetting Sarah Marshall came out, there were dozens of new reports about the "ground-breaking" scene that was Jason Segel getting dumped while he was naked.

BeheadingDisembowelingDefenestrationHorse-beheadingSpear to the throatShield to the faceWolf to the handFloor-window-defenestrationFist to the throat, throat to the groundSword down the spineSword down the spineSpear to the calfShadow dagger to the heartHead on spike (xmany)Boar to the chestGolden crownMace to the faceSword to the (take your pick)Bucket of rats to the chestTongue removalMace to the butt

Rincewind53:Yeah, I'll admit that the rule has loosened up a bit in the last few years. But it's still a scandalous thing when they do it. When Forgetting Sarah Marshall came out, there were dozens of new reports about the "ground-breaking" scene that was Jason Segel getting dumped while he was naked.

I remember watching Romeo and Juliette from the late 60's or early 70's, in 11th or 12th grade. Full frontal male nudity, not sure if the R/X ratings had been created yet (plus I think it was made in the UK, not sure how the rating was applied).

Anyway, I know I've seen a lot more nudity than one might expect in some American films of that era, late 60s early 70s, maybe partly because the studios were actually letting the filmmakers have a fairly large degree of control over their own work (right up until Cimino farked it up for everyone). I didn't stop and take note of how much of that nudity was male, but, my point is I think there's a bit of ebb and flow to what's considered "scandalous" or what have you.

You won't, however, hear me supporting the MPAA ratings board, the manner the members are selected, or the process by which they give out ratings.

Sex is sometimes a necessary device to advance the plot (Joffrey and the two prostitutes), but I don't need five consecutive minutes of nearly hardcore porn (seriously, wiping semen from her lip then sending her to blow another guy?) that do absolutely nothing for the plot.

Yeah, yeah, I know HBO's slogan is 'Tits! Swear Words! Vaginas in the distance!' but get over it.

Yep, I agree. Although I will say that last week's episode didn't have much of the sex that I can remember. Maybe they're cutting down?

tallguywithglasseson:Silly Jesus: It's fairly commonplace in foreign films, and not gratuitous. Evidently when they have sex in other countries the sheets don't always end up neatly just above the nipple line.

Wait, are we talking about nipples or dicks? I've seen my share of foreign films, didn't notice a deluge of penises. How many of these films starred a guy named "Rocco"?

Either/or. And I wouldn't describe it as a deluge of penises, although that would probably make quite a few people here excited...I just meant that if there is a sex scene or swimming scene etc. in a foreign film they often don't position the sheets/towel in such a way that only the shoulders and head are seen...it's not a big shot of penis fullscreen or anything, but it isn't often actively hidden.

//was actually starting to reply to the full quote but started chuckling when I'd highlighted that much

Cythraul:Yep, I agree. Although I will say that last week's episode didn't have much of the sex that I can remember. Maybe they're cutting down?

They're condensing a lot of story into 10 episodes, I honestly wouldn't mind. I'd think at this point the story is what's got people involved and talking about the show -- and, just in general, guys don't have to sit around for HBO to show tits for their weekly glimpse of nudity.

Tatsuma:Yeah, yeah, I know HBO's slogan is 'Tits! Swear Words! Vaginas in the distance!' but get over it.

Corollary, I think FX requires their shows to use the word "shiat" at least once per episode, whether it makes sense or not.

kronicfeld:Spear to the throatShield to the faceWolf to the handFist to the throatSword down the spineSpear to the calfShadow dagger to the heartBoar to the chestMace to the faceSword to the (take your pick)Bucket of rats to the chestMace to the butt"

To all the people complaining about too much sex: They had no TV/movies/entertainment venue so of course when you're bored you're either going to be killing people or having sex with women to pass the time.

Sex is sometimes a necessary device to advance the plot (Joffrey and the two prostitutes), but I don't need five consecutive minutes of nearly hardcore porn (seriously, wiping semen from her lip then sending her to blow another guy?) that do absolutely nothing for the plot.

Yeah, yeah, I know HBO's slogan is 'Tits! Swear Words! Vaginas in the distance!' but get over it.

Yep, I agree. Although I will say that last week's episode didn't have much of the sex that I can remember. Maybe they're cutting down?

The story didn;t call for any at that point.

As previously stated, the only "overdone" scene involving sex was the Littlefinger talking the past with 2 whores scene.

I thought that nastiness was the point. Westeros is a dirty, nasty, awful little spot of dirt where there isn't much to do besides fark and kill each other, and not always in that order. When winter comes, all there is to do is fark and kill each other inside.

Yes it's a bit jarring to the modern world, but this is not the modern world. But i think it sets the scene and mood for how vicious these noble bastards really are. Life is cheap, and it is treated as such.

/I agree that the "wipe the semen from her mouth" bit was a little too much. No woman walks around with semen on her face.//I once heard a woman say, "The fastest way to get it out of my mouth is to swallow it."